Shared Resources, Individual Greed: Dr. Yung-mei Tsai and the Tragedy of the Commons

 

Shared Resources, Individual Greed: Dr. Yung-mei Tsai and the Tragedy of the Commons

Imagine a beautiful community garden. If everyone picks only what they need, the garden flourishes. But if one person decides to take extra to sell, and then others follow suit to avoid "missing out," the garden is picked bare in days. This is the Tragedy of the Commons, a social and economic trap that defines many of our modern crises.

Meet Dr. Yung-mei Tsai

To help students and the public understand this complex human behavior, Dr. Yung-mei Tsai, a distinguished Professor of Sociology at Texas Tech University, published a landmark paper in 1993. Dr. Tsai was an expert in urban sociology and social psychology, dedicated to revealing how social structures influence individual choices. His work turned abstract theories into lived experiences, most notably through his classroom simulation models.

What is the "Tragedy of the Commons"?

First coined by Garrett Hardin, the theory suggests that individuals acting independently and rationally according to their own self-interest will eventually deplete a shared resource, even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen.

Daily Examples of the Tragedy:

• The Office Fridge: Everyone uses it, but no one cleans it. Eventually, it becomes a biohazard because everyone assumes "someone else" will take care of it while they continue to store their own food.

• Public Wi-Fi: When everyone at a cafe starts streaming 4K video simultaneously, the "common" bandwidth crashes, and no one can even send a simple email.

• Traffic Congestion: Every driver chooses the "fastest" route on GPS. When everyone makes the same selfish choice, that road becomes a parking lot.

• Overfishing: If one boat catches more fish to increase profit, others do the same to compete. Soon, the fish population collapses, and all fishermen lose their livelihoods.

---

The Game: Dr. Tsai’s Classroom Simulation

Dr. Tsai’s 1993 simulation provides a powerful "aha!" moment for participants. Here is how it is played:

The Setup:

1. The Pool: A bowl in the center of a group (4-5 people) filled with 16 "resources" (candies, crackers, or tokens).

2. The Goal: Collect as many tokens as possible.

3. The Rounds: Each round, players can take 0, 1, 2, or 3 tokens.

4. The Regeneration: This is the key. At the end of each round, the instructor doubles whatever is left in the bowl (up to the original capacity of 16).

The Typical Outcome:

• Phase 1 (No Communication): Players usually grab 3 tokens immediately, fearing others will take them all. The bowl is empty by the end of round one. The resource is dead. No regeneration occurs. Everyone "loses" the potential for a long-term supply.

• Phase 2 (Communication Allowed): Players talk and realize that if everyone only takes 1 token, the bowl stays healthy, doubles every round, and everyone can eat forever.

The Lesson: Dr. Tsai showed that without communication or shared rules, individual rationality leads to collective ruin.Cooperation isn't just "nice"—it's a survival strategy.

---

 This discussion explores the concept of Antifragility—a term coined by Nassim Taleb—to describe systems that thrive on volatility. In contrast, the English property market's "Chain" system serves as a perfect case study of a Fragile system.

Property Chains vs. Antifragility: Why the English Housing Market is Built to Break

1. The Core Argument: Fragility through Interdependence

In an Antifragile system, individual failures do not compromise the whole (like the restaurant industry). However, the English "Property Chain" is the definition of Fragile. Because every transaction is linked, the failure of one person (a rejected mortgage or a change of heart) causes a "domino effect" that collapses the entire line. The system has zero redundancy.

2. Comparison: The Hong Kong Model (Independent/Robust)

Hong Kong’s market is Robust. Transactions are independent. Once the "Preliminary Agreement" is signed and the deposit paid, the buyer and seller are legally committed ("Must Buy, Must Sell"). Whether the seller can buy their next home is their own problem, not the buyer's. This decoupling prevents localized stress from becoming a systemic collapse.

3. Identifying the Weak Points (The "Triggers of Fragility")

• Zero Skin in the Game: Until the "Exchange of Contracts," either party can withdraw without financial penalty (Gazumping/Gaxundering). There is no "cost" to backing out, which encourages flippancy.

• Information Asymmetry & Delays: Local authority searches take weeks, and solicitors have no legal deadline to respond. In a fragile system, time is the enemy. The longer a chain stays open, the more "Black Swan" events (interest rate hikes, job loss) can occur.

• The Multiplier Effect of Risk: A chain of 7-8 families means 7-8 different banks, 7-8 different surveys, and 7-8 different emotional states. The probability of success is not the average of these risks, but the product of them—making the failure rate (currently 1/3) a mathematical certainty.

---

Conclusion 

The English housing market is a "linear" system in a "nonlinear" world. To become Antifragile, the system would need to decouple individual transactions (like the HK model) or introduce immediate financial consequences for withdrawal. Until then, it remains a system that relies on luck rather than logic.